Obscure Texas law makes a married authorized user liable?

Question

My friends are married. Years ago, the wife opened a credit card account and listed her husband's name without his knowledge, signature, or permission. She racked up a debt and stopped paying, so the creditors are going after both. She just filed for bankruptcy so her end is clear, and now the CC is about to take it to court. Normally, he would only be liable if he was a joint account owner, but according to a cheap attorney, there is an obscure Texas law that says he is because they are married. Is this true?

Answer 1

I agree with everything crazyjester posted.

edit

At least crazyjester is one of the few that "takes the time" to look up law before he posts. His explanation of it is on the spot and he is not ignoring reality.

IF a person bothered to read his answer they would see that he did not "make it sound like the husband is off the hook" as he stated that "as long as the wife did not use the card to purchase "necessaries" for the family or household...."

Hmmmm, it sure doesn't look like he said "hey tell the husband he's off the hook because of this law".

What is ignoring reality is to claim that the Defendant is the one who must prove what has been "necessaries" expenses.

If a person doesn't know that it is up to the Plaintiff to prove what was spent was for necessaries then that person is the one who is "ignoring reality".

And if what the Tx. CP State Law states to be necessaries does "vary" on a case by case basis, I would love to see links to some of those cases AND to the State Law that claims what can be necessaries in one instance cannot be necessaries in another.

Answer 2

yes i am afraid the "cheap" attorney is right!!! be prepared to pay!!!

Answer 3

This is the problem with Yahoo Answers...alot of people simply take the law (especially community property laws) at face value without doing any real research. You people need to understand that the CP laws are different in every state and being in a CP state does NOT automatically mean the spouses are liable.

Texas' CP laws are covered under the Texas Family Code. The TFC states that "a person is personally liable for the acts of the person's spouse only if: (1) the spouse acts as an agent for the person; or (2) the spouse incurs a debt for necessaries. A spouse does not act as an agent for the other spouse solely because of the marriage relationship."

It goes on to state that "The doctrine of necessaries was a part of the common law of the State of Texas, and is now set out in the Texas Family Code as follows: What is "necessary" varies from case to case, and is dependent upon one's station in life. At a minimum, necessaries include food, clothing, shelter, and non-elective medical care.

======================================...

So it appears here that as long as the wife did not use the card to purchase "necessaries" for the family or household, that the husband would not be personally liable. Now this is all assuming that he is listed as an authorized user and NOT a joint account holder. If he is a joint account holder then his only options are to deal with being liable for the debt or file ID theft charges against his wife.

You might also recommend to your friends that they talk to an NACA lawyer in their area about this, as they can be very helpful in dealing with these matters.

Answer 4

Not so obscure: Texas is a community property state.

Answer 5

Yes.  On Yahoo Answers, you can have people, like crazyjester9, who look up the text of a law online, and then quote it and explain what they think it means, ignoring reality.

Under situation " (2) the spouse incurs a debt for necessaries", crazyjester9 makes it sound like the husband is off the hook.  The facts are: he can be sued and needs to pay for an attorney and he has to argue what "necessaries" are because that varies from case to case and he has to show what his wife spent the money on in order to prove that they weren't "necessaries".  None of this would be required if Texas weren't a community property state.